Kemp v. Falk et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO FILE REPLY re 9 : pursuant to Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Applicant shall file a reply on or before August 25, 2014, addressing these contentions and any other matters in the Answer that the Applicant wishes to argue, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 7/28/2014. (jsmit)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00821-RPM
GLENN H. KEMP,
Applicant,
v.
JAMES FALK, Warden, Sterling Correctional Facility;
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN SUTHERS, COLORADO,
Respondents.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO FILE REPLY
_____________________________________________________________________
In the Answer filed by Respondents on June 17, 2014, [Doc. 9] the assertion is
made that this Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is
untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) based on the computation given. The
respondents also contend that claim nine is unexhausted and that claim nine and a
portion of claim five are procedurally defaulted. Claims one, three and six are also said
to be procedurally defaulted. It is now
ORDERED, that pursuant to Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases, the Applicant shall file a reply on or before August 25, 2014, addressing these
contentions and any other matters in the Answer that the Applicant wishes to argue.
DATED: July 28th, 2014
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
__________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge